Kemp v. State
| Citation | 31 S.W.2d 652 |
| Decision Date | 08 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 13590.,13590. |
| Parties | KEMP v. STATE. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from Runnels County Court; Paul Trimmier, Judge.
M. A. Kemp was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Callaway & Callaway, of Brownwood, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Canton, for the State.
Unlawfully carrying a pistol is the offense; penalty, a fine of $100.
No conflict appears in the evidence. The appellant and his companion Dikes were arrested while in the town of Winters in Runnels county. They were sitting in an automobile, and in the appellant's pocket was an automatic pistol. He resided with his mother and his family, consisting of his wife and two children, in Comanche in Comanche county, which was some 120 miles distant from Winters in Runnels county. The two points were connected by a good road. The appellant went to Winters for the purpose of taking his mother to her home in Comanche. She was visiting a kinsman who lived on a ranch in Runnels county, some distance from Winters. In passing through Coleman the appellant picked up his friend Dikes. They reached Winters about nightfall and registered at a hotel. Without going to their room or unloading their baggage, they went to a restaurant where the appellant ate supper. Dikes remained in the car, and the appellant left his pistol therein. After eating supper, which required about twenty minutes, the appellant re-entered the car, picked up the pistol, and put it in his pocket. At that time officers appeared and arrested both the appellant and Dikes.
While in Coleman, in Coleman county, the appellant and Dikes drank some whisky. The appellant remained there for something like an hour or an hour and a half. Proof of these facts was made over the objection of the appellant. The pertinency of the deflection in Coleman county as bearing upon the guilt of the appellant in carrying the pistol in Runnels county is not apparent. The evidence should not have been received.
In its charge the court attempted to give the appellant the benefit of the exemption of a traveler from prosecution under article 484, P. C., prohibiting the carrying of a pistol There was an exception to the manner in which the issue was submitted, and it cannot be denied that the charge is inaccurate. However, the inaccuracy is not available to the accused as a ground for reversal in the absence of the preparation of a special charge which would have cured the defect. Such a special charge does not appear in the record. Odom v State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 580, 200 S. W. 833; Simpson v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 277, 220 S. W. 777.
Aside from the evidence which might show a deflection from the journey in Coleman county, no testimony is perceived, which would show a deflection from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moosani v. State
...from whole cloth over an extended period of time. See, e.g., Stanfield v. State, 34 S.W. 116 (Tex.Crim.App.1896); Kemp v. State, 116 Tex.Crim. 90, 31 S.W.2d 652 (1930); Kiles v. State, 398 S.W.2d 568 While such an ad hoc judicial approach as one finds in opinions like Cortemeglia and its pr......
-
Sanchez v. State
...782, 484 N.E.2d 341, 343 (1985); State v. Gonzales-Morales, 138 Wash.2d 374, 979 P.2d 826, 832 (1999). 7. See Kemp v. State, 116 Tex.Crim. 90, 31 S.W.2d 652, 653 (1930); George v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. 179, 234 S.W. 87, 88 (1921); Bain v. State, 38 Tex.Crim. 635, 44 S.W. 518, 518 (1898). 8. V......
-
Birch v. State
...general rule of going from one county to another, the mode of travel and not distance alone is to be considered. Kemp v. State, 116 Tex.Crim. 90, 31 S.W.2d 652, 653 (1930). All the circumstances of each case must be considered. See George v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. 179, 234 S.W. 87, 88 (1921). ......
-
Gomez v. State, No. 03-07-00050-CR (Tex. App. 4/24/2008)
...of the journey for legitimate incidental purposes does not forfeit a traveler's right to carry a pistol. Kemp v. State, 31 S.W.2d 652, 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930) (holding that twenty-minute stop for meal at restaurant did not constitute deflection from defendant's journey that would forfeit......